United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (Docket No. 366)
J. KOPPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel
Defendant GEM SA's (“Defendant”) responses to
discovery requests. Docket No. 366. Defendant filed a
response in opposition. Docket No. 382. Plaintiff filed a
reply. Docket No. 397. For the following reasons, the Court
DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff's
motion to compel.
August 17, 2017, Plaintiff propounded 58 requests for
production of documents and 20 interrogatories on Defendant.
Docket No. 366-2. On September 21, 2017, Defendant served its
responses, including objectinos, to Plaintiff. Docket No.
366-3. The parties met and conferred on September 22, 2017,
to discuss Defendant's responses and objections. Docket
No. 366-4 at 3. Over the following weeks, the parties met and
conferred, exchanged multiple emails, and established
internal deadlines for Defendant's responses and
supplements to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Docket
Nos. 366-5 - 366-11.
October 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to
compel Defendant's responses to its discovery requests.
Docket No. 366. Plaintiff submits, inter alia, that
Defendant's numerous objections are “evasive [and]
incomplete, ” do not specify the grounds for
objections, and that Defendant fails to provide any documents
in its responses. Id. at 3. Plaintiff asks the Court
to overrule Defendant's objections to all 58 requests for
production and all 20 interrogatories for various reasons.
Id. at 3-4, 11. In response, Defendant
submits that it has been diligent in conducting discovery and
that it has communicated timing and deadline issues to
Plaintiff as they arose. Docket No. 382 at 2-3. Further, on
October 25, 2017, Defendant provided supplemental responses
to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Docket No. 382-1.
Defendant submits that it withdrew many of its objections
from its first set of responses to Plaintiff's discovery
requests, that it provided additional information in its
supplemental responses, and that any remaining objections are
proper. Id. at 4-9. In discussing its supplemental
responses, Defendant fails to adequately respond to
Plaintiff's initial objections. Plaintiff's reply,
therefore, is in regards to Defendant's supplement
responses provided on October 25, 2017, and essentially
initiates a new briefing, one that is no longer based on
Defendant's first set of responses. Docket No. 397.
Court finds that the parties' pleadings are disorganized
and do not provide a full briefing regarding the most
contemporary set of discovery responses. Because the
parties' briefing does not conform to the supplemental
discovery responses, the Court hereby ORDERS
as follows, to ensure that the parties are able to submit
appropriate and contemporary arguments in a format that
facilitates the Court's analysis:
1) The parties shall meet and confer regarding
Defendant's supplement responses to Plaintiff's
discovery requests, no later than December 29, 2017.
2) The parties shall file, no later than January 16, 2018, a
joint statement regarding each discovery request for which a
dispute exists after the meet and confer. That joint
statement must separately address each disputed
request, provide the text of the request, the
specific objections to it, Defendant's arguments
supporting each objection, and Plaintiff's arguments
opposing each objection. In order to facilitate the
parties' adherence to this format, the Court directs the
parties' attention to C.D. Cal. Local Rule 37-2.1 as
guidance. Because this is a joint submission, the
page limitations established in the local rules shall not
apply. To the extent necessary, the joint statement shall
attach any declarations or exhibits that the parties wish to
be considered. As the original movant, Plaintiff shall be
responsible for compiling and filing the joint statement.
Cf. CD. Cal. Local Rule 37-2.2. Further, in the
interest of facilitating cooperation between the parties and
the proper procedure for compiling the joint statement, the
parties shall exchange their arguments no later than January
9, 2018. Any subsequent modifications to the parties'
arguments shall be exchanged no later than January 12, 2018.
3) In addition to filing the joint statement on the docket,
Plaintiff shall deliver a courtesy copy of the joint
statement (and any declarations and exhibits attached
thereto) to the undersigned's box in the Clerk's
Office no later than 3:00 p.m. on January 17, 2018.
 To be clear, the parties must
meaningfully address each objection with citation to legal
authority. Merely identifying an objection will not suffice.
Cf. Kor Media Group, LLC v. Green, 294 F.R.D. 579,
582 n.3 (D. Nev. 2013) (courts may deem waived arguments that
are not meaningfully developed). The joint statement must be
complete in itself. The parties may not incorporate ...